• Tag Archives politics
  • Households Earning $300k+ a Year Are Biggest Beneficiaries of New Student Debt ‘Cancellation’ Plan, Penn Wharton Study Finds

    Image Credit: iStock

    President Joe Biden introduced new provisions to his student debt relief plan earlier this month, and the primary beneficiaries are high-income earners, according to a new analysis released by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

    While Biden’s 2023 SAVE Plan already put taxpayers on the hook for $475 billion, the new plans add another $84 billion to the tally — largely by “canceling” the student debt of some 750,000 households making more than $312,000 a year on average. 

    The average debt relief for these households is $25,500, the study found.

    In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s previous loan forgiveness program, which was implemented without congressional approval. And like Biden’s previous attempt to stick taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars of student loans via executive action, the latest attempts have sparked numerous lawsuits and appear headed for a legal showdown.

    “This latest attempt to sidestep the Constitution is only the most recent instance in a long but troubling pattern of the President relying on innocuous language from decades-old statutes to impose drastic, costly policy changes on the American people without their consent,” one of the lawsuits reads.

    Whether the White House’s latest scheme fares any better in court than the previous one is yet to be determined. What’s clear is that it is a dreadful, immoral, and dangerous policy.

    For starters, the public treasury is being used to pay off the student loans of families who represent the top 5% of earners in the United States. This would be an unjust, senseless, and reckless policy even in fat economic times. But the times are hardly fat.

    The national debt stands at nearly $35 trillion right now, and payments to service that debt are surging at a historic rate. Meanwhile, inflation in the U.S. remains stubbornly high. Consumer prices were up nearly 4% year-over-year in February, nearly double the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

    Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme is likely to goose consumer spending, which economists say will make inflation even worse.

    “I think there’s real concern among economists in that [debt forgiveness] is just going to create more of an inflationary problem,” University of Cincinnati economist Michael Jones told Cincinnati Edition, an NPR affiliate, last year.

    Higher inflation and more debt are not the only consequences of debt forgiveness.

    The Bennett Hypothesis, named after former Education Secretary William J. Bennett, states that one of the reasons tuition is so high in the first place is the steady flood of federal dollars for college-bound students, which allows universities to jack prices higher and higher.

    An abundance of peer-reviewed economic research supports this thesis, including a study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that found colleges hiked tuition by 60 cents for each dollar of federal aid doled out. Loan forgiveness is likely to have a similar effect.

    All of these examples illustrate what we already know. Waving a wand to strike the outstanding $250,000 loan of the musician who wants to take a sabbatical to India to meditate isn’t consequence-free. It comes with economic trade-offs, just like everything else.

    And loan forgiveness shouldn’t be confused with charity. In fact, making taxpayers pay back loans they never took out is nothing short of legalized plunder.

    The 19th-century economist Frederic Bastiat wrote at length about legalized plunder, and he reminded us that there are just two ways that wealth is acquired. One way is through voluntary exchange and individual activity. The other is through theft and coercion.

    Voluntary is a key word here. A philosopher no less renowned than Aristotle observed that for an act to be virtuous, it must be voluntary. This is why freely paying off your nephew’s student loan with your own money is a virtuous act of charity, while using money taken from your neighbors under duress is not.

    Despite those letters sent to debt relief recipients that read, “Congratulations! The Biden-Harris Administration has forgiven your federal student loan(s),” loan forgiveness is not an act of charity. Nor is it sound policy.

    Yet Bastiat likely would not have been surprised to see U.S. presidents taking credit for using the public treasury, funds obtained from the people under the threat of government force, to cover the loans of wealthy, highly educated families with vast earning power. 

    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society,” he wrote in Economic Sophisms, “over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”https://www.youtube.com/embed/aro6vBg1y1s?feature=oembed

    This article originally appeared in The Washington Examiner.


  • New Study Calls into Question Whether DEI Programs Really Boost Corporate Earnings

    It’s safe to say that diversity, equity, and inclusion is one of the more controversial ideas of our time (and a multibillion-dollar industry).

    Some such as Elon Musk argue that DEI — which definitionally speaking means addressing structural inequalities in society — constitutes blatant racism. Others contend that DEI is simply about creating more equitable and harmonious workplaces, and offers clear financial benefits to companies, as well. “Study after study has proved that diverse companies perform better than their more homogeneous counterparts,” Inc. reported in 2023. “Companies that don’t foster an inclusive environment or prioritize diversity initiatives do so at their own peril.”

    “Proved” is a heavy (and inaccurate) word here, but Inc. isn’t wrong about the abundance of evidence showing that DEI initiatives make companies more profitable. From 2015–23, McKinsey & Company, a multinational strategy and management consulting firm, released four separate studies showing that DEI initiatives boost corporate earnings. Unfortunately for DEI advocates, the research appears to be bunk.

    A new study published in Econ Journal Watch, a semiannual peer-reviewed academic journal, shows that researchers were unable to replicate the results of all four McKinsey studies.

    “[O]ur results indicate that despite the imprimatur often given to McKinsey’s 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2023 studies, McKinsey’s studies neither conceptually … nor empirically … support the argument that large US public firms can expect on average to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives,” professors John R. M. Hand and Jeremiah Green found.

    This is not the only research that shows DEI initiatives are not the panacea for corporate earnings supporters claim them to be. Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Robin J. Ely, a professor of business administration at Harvard, and David A. Thomas, the president of Morehouse College, point out that “the rallying cries for more diversity in companies” are not supported “by robust research findings.” Ely and Thomas add, “We say this as scholars who were among the first to demonstrate the potential benefits of more race and gender heterogeneity in organizations.”

    The idea that all these studies showing clear financial benefits to DEI are rubbish might be shocking to some readers, but it’s a familiar academic pattern. For well over a decade, scholars and media have publicly worried about the “replication crisis” in science. It turns out that an astonishing number of findings in various fields — from psychology and economics to sociology, medicine, and beyond — fail to hold up when other researchers attempt to replicate the findings, as Vox has explained.

    None of this is to say that diversity and inclusion are inherently bad, of course.

    I value diversity and am an inclusive person, and I encourage others to be the same. It’s the means we choose to achieve diversity and inclusion that are the problem, as well as that word wedged in between them: equity. To many, advancing social equity is a paramount value. Because of this, many support illiberal means (in the classical sense) to achieve this end—including supporting policies that actively discriminate on the basis of race.

    Coleman Hughes, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The End of Race Politics, recently appeared on The View and offered a better approach. “My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race, both in our personal lives and our public policy,” Hughes told the hosts (who accused him of being “co-opted” by the Right). Hughes is right to say that this is the North Star we should be aiming for: the equal treatment of all people regardless of race or class.

    The great orator and abolitionist Frederick Douglass saw that such a view is the true path to progress. “In a composite nation like ours, as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights, and a common destiny,” Douglass noted in a speech in 1867.

    The ethos of DEI runs counter to this, which is precisely why both the concept and industry should be scrapped. A good place to start would be to dispense with the fiction that DEI programs are a rainbow leading to a pot of gold in corporate profits.

    This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.

    Source: New Study Calls into Question Whether DEI Programs Really Boost Corporate Earnings – FEE


  • Online Encyclopedia Declares Inflation a ‘Right-Wing Talking Point’ in Response to Hit Song

    A new folk song with edgy lyrics is causing quite a stir in America, and it’s not “Try That in a Small Town.” 

    Oliver Anthony’s blue-collar anthem “Rich Men North of Richmond” exploded across the internet, racking up 66 million views on YouTube since debuting last month. 

    Anthony’s mournful ballad has an almost Depression-era feel. Sporting a bushy red beard and a twangy guitar, the Virginia native channels the struggles of working-class Americans while strumming away in the woods in front of what appears to be a hunting blind. 

    I’ve been sellin’ my soul, workin’ all day / Overtime hours for bulls*it pay / So I can sit out here and waste my life away / Drag back home and drown my troubles away. 

    It’s a damn shame what the world’s gotten to / For people like me and people like you / Wish I could just wake up and it not be true / But it is, oh, it is. 

    Livin’ in the new world / With an old soul / These rich men north of Richmond / Lord knows they all just wanna have total control / Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do / And they don’t think you know, but I know that you do / ‘Cause your dollar ain’t sh*t and it’s taxed to no end / ‘Cause of rich men north of Richmond

    The song has resonated broadly with listeners, but it has also become a sort of political bellwether with lyrics that take aim at taxes, inflation, and welfare. 

    The Los Angeles Times notes Anthony’s song has been criticized by leftists, who’ve dubbed the tune an “alt-right anthem” that’s “offensive” and “fatphobic.” The Guardian, meanwhile, accused Anthony of “punching down” and mocking the poor. 

    Right wing pundits have seen things differently, including Matt Walsh who called the song “raw and authentic.”

    “One interesting thing about ‘Rich Men North Of Richmond’ is that he (rightly) attacks the welfare state,” tweeted Walsh. “Many conservatives think that it isn’t populist to criticize entitlements but in reality blue collar Americans are sick of having their money stolen to prop up a system that functions as nothing more than a vote buying scheme for Democrats.”

    It’s not exactly a surprise that Anthony’s hit song would be received differently by the left and the right, which increasingly operate in different cultural ecosystems with totally different values.

    But some are getting a bit carried away in the effort to turn Anthony’s blue-collar tune into a right-wing screed.

    Wikipedia’s page on ‘Rich Men North Of Richmond’ initially claimed that “the song’s lyrics revolve around common right-wing themes such as inflation (the dollar ain’t sh*t)… .”

    Did you catch that? Inflation apparently is now “a right-wing talking point” instead of an economic phenomenon broadly defined today as a general and sustained increase in consumer prices and a decline in the value of money.

    Wikipedia’s claim, which is now slightly reworded (following my tweet), is bizarre. There is nothing partisan about inflation, after all. It affects everyone. Rich and poor. Republican, Democrat, and Independent. People of every sex, race, and creed.  

    For decades, the term “silent killer” has been used by scholars, economists, and financial asset managers to describe inflation because of the gradual and often unnoticed erosion in purchasing power it causes. 

    Inflation has destroyed civilizations (Rome) and ushered in totalitarian regimes (Mao in China), which is why it has been decried by an array of intellectuals who were hardly “right-wingers.” 

    The writer Ernest Hemingway, who moved to Spain during the Spanish Civil War to oppose Franco and wrote for Pravda because he hated fascism so much, called inflation “the first panacea for a mismanaged nation.” (The second, he added, was war.)

    John Maynard Keynes, the staunch anti-conservative English economist who became arguably the most influential macroeconomic thinker in history, warned in 1919 that Vladmir Lenin “is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency.” 

    “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens,” wrote Keynes. “The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.” (emphasis added)

    More recently Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard and an economist that served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, warned that inflation is undermining confidence in the American political system. 

    “It’s clear that inflation is significantly contributing to distrust in the institutions and to pessimism about the future,” Summers recently told The Harvard Gazette

    Clearly, one needn’t be a right-winger to be concerned about inflation. Anyone who goes to McDonald’s and is stunned to see a $50 receipt after ordering a few burgers, fries, and drinks has a right to be concerned over the erosion of their money.

    None of this is to say that there are no political undertones to Anthony’s song. There clearly are, and this fits snuggly in the long tradition of country music. 

    Anyone who has ever listened to Hank Williams Jr. or David Allan Coe or any number of artists can tell you weaving poverty and politics into songs is hardly out of the ordinary in the country music genre. Consider these lyrics from a popular song from Alabama tune, “Song of the South”:

    Cotton on the roadside, cotton in the ditch 

    We all picked the cotton but we never got rich

    Daddy was a veteran, a southern democrat  

    They oughta get a rich man to vote like that

    Well somebody told us Wall Street fell 

    But we were so poor that we couldn’t tell 

    Cotton was short and the weeds were tall 

    But Mr. Roosevelt’s a gonna save us all

    Alabama’s song is more overtly political than Oliver Anthony’s—it mentions a political party and president—but you’ll find no mention of it being left-wing on Wikipedia’s page of the song. 

    The primary difference, of course, is that Alabama’s song praised government anti-poverty programs, whereas Anthony’s song attacks them. 

    Sadly, it’s quite possible that we’ve reached a point where any kind of criticism of the federal system is considered “right wing” by many. (After all, even everyday activities such as working out to getting up early have been described as such.) 

    But adding inflation to this list of partisan topics is not just unwise, but dangerous. There is, I suppose, one silver lining. 

    Wikipedia’s labeling of inflation as a right-wing talking point is tacit admission that the real cause of inflation is not corporate greed or Taylor Swift. Inflation is a policy of the powers in Washington, D.C. who are printing trillions of dollars.

    If pointing out basic economic realities makes one “right wing,” I’m not sure what that says about the left. 

    A version of this article first appeared in The Epoch Times


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.